Magic: the Gathering - Modern General

File: modern metagame 1st june 2016.png (105KB, 1218x760px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1218x760px

For info on top tier decks and their lists, see pic related and see http://mtgtop8.com/

>>48668992

>>48668887

>>48669037
1. Go to http://mtgtop8.com/
2. Click "modern"
3. Click "control - other" and "combo - other" as mtgtop8 is inconsistent on how to sort mill decks
4. Look at well-performing mill decks and see how they differ from yours.
Generally, Mill is seen as a strictly worse Burn deck in that you're trying to burn 50 cards as opposed to 20 damage. Most mill decks mill aggressively rather than passively.

Right now there's two mill decks on mtgtop8:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12644&d=273185&f=MO
And this:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12843&d=274559&f=MO

Compare those lists with yours and see for yourself how their gameplan differs from yours. If you still want to play the controlling style, go ahead and test it.

>>48669037
Mill isnt viable in modern

>>48669161

Thanks for the advice.

Anyonr have thoughts on Searing Blaze? I run 3 in my burn list, and while it's essentially double bolt, it's a really bad topdeck if I don't have a land for whatever reason. And you can't always hold onto a land. I'm thinking about cutting them to the side.

I'm also trying out 2 Hooting Mandrills instead of Nacatls. Seems to be going well, except the games with both Mandrills and Lavamancer are just bad.

>>48669105
>>48669105

Thread has the MTG tag for other /tg/ users to filter us better.

>>48669298
Don't start le ebin thread was dude. Just post a friendly reminder to put MTG in the subject instead.

File: 1463104705585.jpg (59KB, 655x527px)

59KB, 655x527px

>>48669161
>well-performing mill decks

>>48669298
I'll remember that in the future. I don't think the mistake is worth deleting this thread for, however. Do you disagree?
I would also ask you to put a "casual decks not welcome, make a /casual/ general instead" disclaimer whenever you create Modern threads from here on. We've had a lot of idiots shitting all over our threads last week.

>>48669352
are you shitting me? the rev for 15 guys are the reason I come here.

This sucks guys. Ican find my fourth bauble. i needed it for trades

>>48669352
They show up anyway. They always do.

Enough meta-talk. Post decks!

http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/meek-thopters-3/

I've been trying Cranial Plating as a 1-of. I've yet to put it into play. Chalice and Bridge are my to-go lock pieces, and I can't imagine playing less than 4. Thopter Foundry is bad in multiples unless facing destruction, yet I sometimes lack a combo piece. Having 1 Foundry is okay as I can sac rocks in a pinch to stay alive.
My goal is to practice the deck until I'm familiar with it's play style, and then move on to practicing its legacy equivalent.

>>48669415
"its modern legal, therefore its a modern deck"

>>48669449

you sound likefcvgy7uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh the type that only brews with le best cards in le format. if a player came in here and said "hey my friends and I play proxy modern with a 600 budget limit and I need a replacement for ____ in this list when Im having trouble against _____" you bet your ass I would help them. this is Modern general, not Spike Modern general, so if you want to make a super narrow containment "casual modern" thread and mandate that these threads be spikes only, be my guest.

>>48671127

>you sound likefcvgy7uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

fucking cat walking on my keyboard

>>48671127
The only type that I have a problem with are the ones that post a shitty deck, then get upset when people give them feedback that they don't like. The guy that was playing a doubling season deck without jace aot comes to mind.

>>48671209

oh i see, so the real problem is people who think they're building the next tier deck when really they'd be lucky to win a match at their LGS.

>>48671209

>that guy that was playing a doubling season deck
>modern

right off the bat my question would be "are you planning on fleshing this deck out on paper? it will not pay itself off in packs at FNMs, just so you know". it depends on what his goal is, i suppose. a lot of times I build a deck from the ground up around a specific card I want to see work, but never would I genuinely expect a funbrew to go tier.

>>48671334
His goal was just to be an asshole.
First he said it wasn't a competitive deck (which it by no means was). Then when people told him to post in a casual thread he said it was competitive. Then people gave him advice and he said it was bad advice because his deck shouldn't be competitive. Basically he kept on like that to anyone that gave him replies.

But on a more Modern related note. Would it even be possible to make a viable (at FNM level) Superfriends deck?

>>48671500

you'd be surprised just how much is viable at a FNM level. Depending on your LGS you can win with modern Zombie tribal if you wanted, you don't necessarily need a deck that's even tier.

If everyone is playing tier at your LGS you might not have a lot of luck, but note that not a lot of removal is online vs planeswalkers so against decks that want to be interactive you might win and around noninteractive decks with a fast goldfish you're basically fucked no matter what your list holds.

>>48671137
Thought you were having an aneurism

>>48671500
>Would it even be possible to make a viable (at FNM level) Superfriends deck?


DON'T even touch that subject bro.

>>48669212
Control isn't viable either while we're at it